beentheredonthat's Comments

The Unsustainable Lie of Inflation

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:40:40 -0500

Why do we feel it is a good thing to punish the rich??

On Nov 09 02:25 PM Michael Clark wrote:

> Reading this makes me feel that I'm talking to myself.
>
> Inflation is the rich stealing from the poor. The Keynes' quote is
> wonderful: In this case it is the State-Capitalists (Wall Street
> aligned with Washington DC) that is stealing from its citizenry.
>
>
> Deflation is the poor getting even with the rich. Is it any wonder
> the power center in America (Wall Street and Washington DC) will
> do ANYTHING to protect their inflationary doctrine? They would rather
> destroy America that have to give back any of the money they've successfully
> stolen already.
>
> Deflation is God's way of punishing the rich. Deflation will have
> its day.

How Auto Bailout Is Punishing Ford

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:53:59 -0500

I have long held the opinion that if the government had resisted the previous Chrysler bailout, both Ford and GM would be in a better position today.

The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:21:23 -0400

Do not confuse usefullness with value.

On Oct 28 11:19 AM beentheredonthat wrote:

> I think you missed the point of this blog. The activity 'striking
> the mule with a hose' has no value, unless someone is willing to
> compensate you for doing so. The hose has value, you paid for it.
> Same said for the mule.

The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:19:49 -0400

I think you missed the point of this blog. The activity 'striking the mule with a hose' has no value, unless someone is willing to compensate you for doing so. The hose has value, you paid for it. Same said for the mule.

On Oct 27 11:25 AM Hester wrote:

> I'm not an economist, and I'm not as smart as you (and I'm not being
> sarcastic). However, I think about your argument in several ways.
> I look at your economic argument from the standpoint as a normal
> American, trying to make it in modern society. I also think of your
> argument as someone who must depend on nobody to survive, as I would
> if there were some disastor that made it so. I am a naturalist as
> well as an investor, so I imagine myself sitting in the woods with
> nobody else, trying to survive. In that situation, neither gold nor
> dollars would be valuable. However, some things would still be valuable,
> which I think refutes the Austrian argument, something is valuable
> only if someone else thinks its valuable.
>
> "Nothing in this universe has intrinsic value; every single thing
> you possess, want to possess, use, can use, have used, can offer,
> have offered, or will offer is valuable only if someone else finds
> it valuable. I want you to try to imagine a universe in which no
> sentient creatures exist. How much would a “car” be worth?"
>
> This makes me think of my days hiking in the Montanan wilderness,
> with nobody else around. If I were to live in that wilderness, alone,
> with no sentient creatures around, how much would a car be worth?
> There would be nobody around to exchange something for it, like gold
> or currency or anything else. So you might say it has no value since
> there is no other human around to value it. However, it does have
> value. I would kill for a car out in that wilderness at times. You
> couldn't drive it anywhere, but you could certainly use it for shelter
> against inclement weather. You could use the cigarette lighter to
> start fires so you could preserve all important matches. You could
> use the gasoline to help fire up wet wood. You could store wood in
> the trunk to keep it dry. There are copious amounts of uses, so it
> has value, even with no other sentient creature around.
>
> You also use an anology containing a mule. If nobody would pay you
> any gold or dollars or whatever for that mule, does that mean it
> has no intrinsic value? No, not in my opinion. I guess it would depend
> on what your definition of intrinsic value is. However, a mule has
> uses and thus retains value no matter what. Even if nobody wanted
> the mule, you could still make use out of it. You could eat it for
> one. My point is, just because nobody else finds something valuable
> does not mean something retains no value.
>
> I'm not making an argument for the labor theory, I am merely stating
> what I thought of when I read this article.

The World of Book Publishing Is About to Change

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:01:01 -0400

Elyse, I agree with you this is a great innovation for soft cover books. However nothing can ever replace the hard cover.

Nissan, Chrysler Deal Suspended

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:46:37 -0400

Wages and benefits, some might say, are the least of the concerns when it comes to unionization in general and the UAW specifically

Flickr Shuts Down Forum Discussion on Obama-Joker Image

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:19:04 -0400

old indie: Well said. Glad I am not the only one to have noticed.

Ford: Defying the Odds

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:01:58 -0400

FOREVER!!!

On Jun 20 11:59 AM ednaldo cunha wrote:

> How LOng will petroleum be the source of energy IN Market??

Candidates to Replace GM, Citigroup in the Dow

Sat, 30 May 2009 12:48:04 -0400

Why not Ford Motor Company? F

Fed Beige Book Gives Markets Reason to Cheer

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:34:45 -0400

Let's see all 12 Districts are down. 7 are down more than expected, 5 down a little less then expected and this is 'Good News'? Please!

The End of (Most) Newspapers

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:41:43 -0400

The NYT has consistently been a dependable advocate or at least a front for left wing causes especially the Democratic Party. It is likely the Obama regime will provide bailout funding for this failed corp. Too big to fail takes on a new meaning

Putin, the Economics Professor

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:59:20 -0500

Spudster, FYI, Bush never claimed to have won the 'conflict' in Iraq, a common misconception perpetrated by the media and the ill informed. He was refering to the battle between U.S. forces and organized Iraq military units under the command of Saddam. Also FYI our venture into Iraq was not a 'conflect', it was a War.

On Feb 02 08:21 AM Spudster wrote:

> Are you a paid shill for Khodorkovski or just dumb?
>
> Khodorkovski did not build a great oil business any more than Bush
> won the conflict in Iraq.
>
> Or perhaps your definition of build actually means steal?
>
> As for Putin - absolutely the situation in Russia isn't good. But
> it is amusing how Russia's economic situation is due to corruption
> and mismanagement, but the economic situation in the US, the UK,
> the Baltics, the rest of Eastern Europe, Japan, etc are due to
"housing
> bubbles", "global recession", "high energy prices", etc etc.

The SKYpe Is Not Falling

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:05:55 -0500

Magic Jack will rule $19.95 per annum

Harvard vs. Yale, Economic Edition, 1980: A Tribute to John Train

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:34:21 -0500

Deficets were a direct result of increased spending not reduced tax revenue. Actual tax receipts increased during the Reagan years, but spending increased at a much faster rate. Basic law of nature...TAX SOMETHING YOU GET LESS OF IT, SUBSIDISE SOMETHING YOU GET MORE OF IT.

On Dec 19 08:30 PM bobace wrote:

> Agree with JE'87 Dec-19-08 01:37 PM - especially former Harvard Professor
> Tobin. If it were not for the Keysians (including Harvard's J.K.
> Galbraith) the US may have become a lesser nation: a Dickensian state
> more divided between have and have-nots than today. The current state
> of affairs was founded on Reaganomics - supply-siders, low taxes,
> higher deficit (resulting from low taxes) and deregulation of market
> participants. It was the deregulators that started the Wars on WMDs
> and Terrorism that will likely equal or exceed the $700 Billion TARP.
> Ideology on the right and left are equally dangerous. We can decide
> to rebuild a better economy through real-economy planning (New Deal)
> or sacrifice millions of poor and powerless people.